Karnataka High Court
A.D. Makandar vs The State Bank Of India on 21 December, 2018
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna, A.S Bellunke
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.
WRIT APPEAL No.568/2008 (S-R)
C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.30318/2013 (S-R)
IN W.A. NO.568/2008
BETWEEN
ANAND APPA LOHAR,
S/O APPA BALU LOHAR
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
EARLIER WORKING AS
RECORD KEEPER CASHIER AT
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
ADB CHIKODI 591201, BELGAUM, SINCE
RETD. R/AT P B ROAD, GORAKSHANA MAL,
SANKESHWAR 591 313, HUKKERI TQ.,
BELGAUM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA
A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955,
REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
HRD DEPARTMENT, CORPORATE CENTRE,
STATE BANK BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400 021
- : 2 :-
2. THE TRUSTEES, STATE BANK OF
INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND
REP.BY THE CHAIRMAN, CORPORATE
CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN
MUMBAI 400 021
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA
CHIKODI ADB, CHIKODI 581 201
BELGAUM. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI & SRI. P.S.SAWKAR, ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 16.01.2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P. NO.18561/2003.
----------
IN W.A. NO.30318/2013
BETWEEN
A.D. MAKANDAR,
S/O LATE D. MAKANDAR,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
EARLIER WORKING AS
SENIOR ASSISTANT AT
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
HANGAL-581104, HAVERI DISTRICT,.
KARNATAKA STATE,
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING
NEAR HEALTH CENTRE,
HANGAL-581104. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE )
- : 3 :-
AND
1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955,
REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN
HRD DEPARTMENT,
CORPORATE CENTRE,
STATE BANK BHAVAN,
MUMBAI 400 021.
2. THE TRUSTEES,
STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES,
PENSION FUND,
REP.BY THE CHAIRMAN,
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
CORPORATE CENTRE,
STATE BANK BHAVAN,
MUMBAI 400 021.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 04.02.2013 PASSED IN W.P. NO.20160/2013 BY
ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION
NO.20160/2003 AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 20.11.2018 COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
- : 4 :-
JUDGMENT
These writ appeals have been connected and heard together as the controversy herein revolves around Rule 22(1)(a) of the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1955 ("Rules" for short) in both these appeals.
2. W.A.No.568/2008 assails order dated 16/01/2008, passed in W.P.No.18561/2003, while W.A.No.30318/2013 assails order dated 04/02/2013, passed in W.P.No.20160/2003. By the said orders, respective learned single Judges have rejected the writ petitions.
3. Succinctly stated the facts in W.A.No.568/2008 are that, appellant joined the service of respondent No.1/Bank in the year 1983 as a watchman. Thereafter, he was promoted from time to time and he was working as Record Keeper-Cashier in the year 2000. On 29/12/2000, the Bank introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme ("Scheme" for short). The appellant applied under the
- : 5 :-
Scheme seeking voluntary retirement. His application was accepted by the Bank on 02/02/2001 with a condition that he would be relieved from duty on 31/03/2001. Accordingly, he was relieved from duty after office hours on 31/03/2001. According to the petitioner, from 12/05/2001, he was drawing monthly pension, but by order dated 29/08/2001, monthly pension was stopped on the basis of amended Rule 22(1)(a) of the Rules. Assailing the vires of the said Rule, petitioner approached this Court. Learned single Judge, after interpreting Rule 22 held that when the petitioner was relieved from service on 31/03/2001, he had completed seventeen years, eight months and eight days of pensionable service and he was aged fifty eight years of age. Therefore, he was not entitled for pension as per the amended rule. That by mistake or an error committed by the Bank, pension was extended to him under the un-amended Rule 22 and on noticing the same, with effect from 29/08/2001, the payment of pension was stopped. That there was no illegality or error committed by the Bank in stopping
- : 6 :-
pension to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this appeal.
4. In W.A.No.30318/2013, the facts are that the petitioner being an ex-serviceman, on his discharge from the Armed Forces, joined as a permanent employee in the respondent/Bank on 12/01/1984 as a Clerk/Cashier. Pursuant to the Scheme announced by the Bank, appellant herein applied for voluntary retirement on finding himself to be eligible under the Scheme. Accepting his application, the Bank relieved him from the services of the Bank after office hours on 31/03/2001. On the day when he retired from service, he had completed actual service of seventeen years, two months and nineteen days, though in terms of Rule 7 it was confirmed that he had completed sixteen years, eight months and nineteen days. When he was relieved from service on 31/03/2001, he had completed fifty eight years and thirty days of age. According to this appellant also, he was eligible to receive pension as per Rule 22 of the Rules and hence, the
- : 7 :-
appellant applied for pension and the local Head Office of the Bank determined the pension payable to the appellant at Rs.1,830/- per month plus dearness allowance applicable thereon and there was also letter of sanction dated 30/07/2001 issued, wherein the name of this appellant was at Sl.No.6. According to the appellant, it appears that respondent No.2 advised the branch of the Bank that he was not entitled to pension since he had not completed twenty years of service. Being aggrieved, petitioner made a representation and the same was forwarded to the local Head Office of the Bank, which was rejected by letter dated 14/09/2002 and the same was also communicated to the Zonal Office, Hubli, by the local Head Office, Bengaluru, by communication dated 23/09/2002. The Zonal Office, Hubli, informed Hanagal Branch about the rejection by its communication dated 27/09/2002 and the appellant was orally informed about the said communications. Being aggrieved, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20160/2003. By order dated 04/02/2013, the said writ petition came to be rejected by
- : 8 :-
following the order passed on 16/01/2008 in W.P.No.18561/2003 in respect of which the connected appeal in W.A.No.568/2008 has been filed.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent/Bank as well as perused the material on record.
6. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the appellants were eligible to apply for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and accordingly, made their respective applications as they were also entitled to pension on retirement under the said Scheme as per the relevant clauses of the said Scheme. However, on the day they were relieved from service, Rule 22(1)(a) of the Rules was amended and as per the amendment, appellants herein became disentitled to pension. It is contended that the day on which they were relieved from the services of the Bank and the day on which the amendment was enforced coincided, which date was 31/03/2001. Had the appellants known that with effect from 31/03/2001 they
- : 9 :-
would not have been entitled to any pension, they would not have sought for voluntary retirement under the Scheme.
7. Drawing our attention to the Scheme, learned counsel for the appellants contended that Clause 6 of the Scheme deals with other benefits. Clause (6)(c) states that pension in terms of State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules on the relevant date (including commuted value of pension) was applicable to them. Therefore, as on the date they applied for voluntary retirement, Rule 22(1)(a) as it stood applied to them and not the amended rule as on 31/03/2001. That the amendment to Rule 22(1)(a) has been made subsequent to the application for voluntary retirement being submitted by the appellants. That the Bank could not have amended the said Rule after the submission of the applications for voluntary retirement under the Scheme. As a result of the amendment, the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right to pension. Had this fact was made known to the appellants, they would not have applied for
- : 10 :-
voluntary retirement under the Scheme. Therefore, they were constrained to challenge the vires of Rule 22 of the Rules. Adverting to Rule 22 of the Rules, appellants' counsel contended that Rule 22(1)(a) as it stood prior to its amendment (which was with effect from 31/03/2001) entitled the appellants to pension, but the insertion of words "if he is in the service of the Bank on or after the 22nd May, 1998, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of sixty years" has disentitled the appellants from pension as they had not attained sixty years when they were relieved from service under the Scheme.
8. Learned counsel for appellants contended that under the Scheme, the appellants submitted their applications and on acceptance of the same, they were relieved from duty on 31.03.2001. On the very same day, the amendment was brought to Rule 22(1)(a) of the Rules which was not known to the appellants herein. That by virtue of the amendment, the appellants have been deprived of pension on seeking voluntary retirement under
- : 11 :-
the Scheme as they had not attained the age of 60 years as on the date when they were relieved from duties i.e., 31.03.2001. They contended that though the bank was aware of the said amendment to be made to the Rules, they did not bring it to the notice of the employees seeking voluntary retirement such as appellants herein. The amendment to Rule 22 was brought into effect coinciding with their date of retirement. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Calculta High Court in Chairman, State Bank of India & ors vs. Mihir Kumar Nandi and anr, (DB) 2010 LAB I.C. 1153, they contended that the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that amendment made to Rule 22 is fraudulent. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, on the date of acceptance of voluntary retirement of the applicants, it was known to the Bank that the amendment would be effected to the Rules and the employees such as the appellants would be deprived of their rights to pension on the date of being relieved i.e. 31.03.2001. Even if they had retired after attaining superannuation, they would have
- : 12 :-
been entitled to pension. If change in the rule had been made known to the appellants, they would not have applied under the Scheme and they would have retired in due course and not by obtaining voluntary retirement, in which case, they would have been entitled for pension even under the amended Rule. That Section 17 of the Contract Act applies and in the absence of appellants being made known about the proposed amendment to the Rules accepting their applications for voluntary retirement under the scheme has been prejudicial to their interest. Therefore, they submitted that the amendment made to Rule 22 may be quashed.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
- Bank contended that the voluntary retirement itself provided for payment of pension depending on the rules prevalent on the date the employees would cease to be in the service of the Bank. Admittedly these appellants ceased to be in service of the Bank as on 31.03.2001, the date on which the amendments made to the Rules were made effective. They were ineligible for pension on account
- : 13 :-
of amendment made to Rule 22(1)(a) of the Rules. Further, the Rules have been incorporated in the Scheme; that the expression "relevant date" is defined in the Scheme to mean the date on which the employees ceases to be in service of the bank as a consequence of acceptance of request for voluntary retirement under the Scheme. The "relevant date" in the instant case is 31.03.2001 on which date appellants were relieved from service and their entitlement of pension was on the basis of the Rules prevalent on that day. It is only a matter of coincidence that amendment to Rule 22(1)(a) was made effective from 31.03.2001, which is the date on which they were relieved from their services. When the appellants had accepted the terms and conditions of the Scheme which incorporated the Rules and when the Scheme itself defined 'the relevant date' to be the date on which they ceased to be in service of the Bank, the rule as was amended with effect from that day was applicable to the appellant's herein. It was contended that the appellants herein are not entitled to any pension under the Rules as
- : 14 :-
they had not completed sixty (60) years of age as on 31.03.2001, the date they ceased to be in the service of the Bank. Learned counsel for the Bank further contended that the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has been stayed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
That having regard to definition of 'the relevant date' in the scheme of voluntary retirement and pension rules as incorporated in the said Scheme, the appellants are not entitled to any pension. That the learned Single Judges have rightly dismissed the writ petitions and there is no merit in the appeals and the same may be dismissed.
10. On hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, the following points would arise for our consideration;-
i) Whether the respective learned Single Judges were right in rejecting the writ petitions on the basis of amended Rule 22 of the Rules which came into effect on 31.3.2001?
ii) What order?
- : 15 :-
11. It is not in dispute that the appellants herein were in service of the Respondent -Bank and had applied under the Scheme of voluntary retirement and their applications were accepted by the bank and they were relieved from service on 31.03.2001. It is also not in dispute that on 31.03.2001, the amendment to Rule 22 of the Rules was effected and came into force. In order to answer the question as to whether the appellants are entitled to pension under Rule 22 and that the amendment made to Rule is not applicable to the appellants herein, it would be necessary to consider the relevant clauses of the Scheme. Clauses 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are extracted below;-
"3. Eligibility:
The Scheme will be open to all permanent employees of the Bank, except those specifically mentioned as 'ineligible', who have put in 15 years of service or have completed 40 years of age as on 31st December 2000.
Age will be reckoned on the basis of the date of birth as entered in service record.
4. Period:
The Scheme will remain open during the period 15th January 2001 to 31st January 2001 (inclusive of both days) with an option to the
- : 16 :-
Bank to close early/extend the Scheme without assigning any reasons. The applications for Voluntary Retirement under the SBIVRS will be accepted during this period only.
5. Amount of Ex-gratia:
The staff member whose request for retirement under SBIVRS has been accepted by Competent Authority will be paid an amount of ex-gratia of 60 days' salary (pay plus stagnation increments plus special pay plus dearness allowance) for each completed year of service (for this purpose fraction of service of six months and above will be taken as one year and accordingly service of less than six months will not be counted) or salary for the number of months service is left, whichever is less. Fraction of a month, if any, will be ignored.
'Relevant Date' means the date on which the employee ceases to be in service of the Bank as a consequence of the acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement under the Scheme.
6. Other benefits:
a) Gratuity as payable under the extant instructions on the relevant date.
b) Provident Fund contribution as per State Bank of India Employees' Provident Fund Rule as on relevant date.
c) Pension in terms of State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules on the relevant date (including commuted value of pension).
- : 17 :-
d) Encashment of balance of Privilege Leave, as applicable, on the relevant date.
e) Respective facilities extended to officers/others such as retention of accommodation, telephone, car, continuation of housing loan etc. will be extended to officers/others retiring under SBIVRS as per present dispensations, at the discretion of Competent Authority.
However, in such cases of retention of physical facilities, 50% of the amount of ex-gratia payable will be released only after the employee surrenders the facility. No interest, however, will be paid for the amount so withheld. All other outstanding loans/advances will have to be repaid before date of retirement under SBIVRS, failing which the amount of ex-gratia and other terminal benefits payable to the employee will be appropriated towards the outstanding loans/advances and the balance amount only will be payable to the employee.
7. Other Features:
The Bank intends to control the outflow according to its requirements. Towards this end, the Bank retains the discretion to limit the number of employees allowed to retire in each category of staff viz. officer/clerical- cash/subordinate, to be covered under SBIVRS. As such the Bank will have the sole discretion as to the acceptance or the rejection of the request for retirement under SBIVRS depending upon the requirements of the Bank. For the purpose of exercising discretion in this regard, category wise lists of eligible applicants
- : 18 :-
would be prepared in descending order of their age and applications of employees coming in higher age groups above cut-off age would be accepted; the cut-off age in each category will of course depend upon the acceptable number of employees who can be permitted to retire. No voluntary retirement shall be deemed to have come into effect unless the decision of the Competent Authority has been communicated in writing."
12. Clause 3 deals with eligibility and non-eligibility of employees of the Bank under the Scheme. Clause 4 deals with period of scheme, while Clause 5 deals with amount of ex-gratia payment and Clause 6 deals with other benefits. Clause 8 deals with general benefits, Clause 9 deals with authority structure, while Clause 10 deals with mode of ex-gratia payment.
13. It is noted from the above, that Clause 5 defines 'Relevant Date' to mean the date on which the employee ceases to be in service of the Bank as a consequence of the acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement under the Scheme.
- : 19 :-
14. In Clause 7 it is stated that no voluntary retirement shall be deemed to have come into effect unless the decision of the competent authority has been communicated in writing. Clause 6 (c) deals with other benefits and states that the pension in terms of State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules on the relevant date (including commuted value of pension) shall be paid.
The expression 'relevant date' in Clause 6(c) and expression 'relevant date' in Clause 5 would have the same meaning which is the date on which employees ceases to be in service of the bank as a consequence of the acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement under the Scheme which is 31.3.2001 in the instant case. When the employee submitted his application seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme between 15.01.2001 to 31.01.2001 inclusive of both days, he or she would have read and understood the clauses of the Scheme including the definition of 'relevant date'. It must be held that employee of the Bank who made such an application seeking voluntary retirement is deemed to have
- : 20 :-
understood the terms and conditions of the Scheme. There can be no two opinions or doubt about this aspect of the matter. An employee seeking voluntary retirement is aware that his pension would be paid in accordance with the Rules as on the relevant date i.e. the date on which the employee ceased to be in service of the Bank which was 31.03.2001 in the instant case. Clause 6(c) states that pension shall be payable under the Rules as on the relevant date i.e., 31.03.2001 when amendment to Rule 22 was made effective.
15. The relevant portion of Rule 22 is extracted as under:-
"22. (i) A member shall be entitled to a pension under those rules on retiring from the Bank's service -
(a) After having completed twenty years' pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 1.1.99, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty eight years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 22.05.1998, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided
- : 21 :-
that he has attained the age of sixty years;
(b) After having completed twenty years' pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained, if he shall satisfy the authority competent to sanction his retirement by approved medical certificate or otherwise that he is incapacitated for further active service;
(c) After having completed twenty years pensionalbe service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained at his request in writing.
(d) After twenty five years' pensionable service."
(underlining by us)
16. The underlined portion is the amendment made to the Rule. Rule 8 of the Rules reads as under:-
"8. Save as provided in Rule 25, no employee shall be eligible to become a member of the fund on or after 22-05-1998
(a) if he is a member of the Imperial Bank of India Employees' Pension and Guarantee Fund or if he is engaged in any country outside India and appointed for service in such country;
(b) if he is below 18 years of age;
(c) if he is over 50 years of age; or
- : 22 :-
(d) whose service is specially declared by the Bank to be non-pensionable."
Thus by virtue of amendment made to Rule 22, if an employee has become a member of Pension Fund and if he was in service of the Bank on or after 22.05.1998 after having completed ten (10) years of pensionable service, shall be entitled to pension provided that he has attained the age of sixty years. Thus, there are three conditions to be fulfilled as on the relevant date so as to be entitled to pension under the Rules: i) The employee must be in service of the bank on or after 22.05.1998; ii) must have completed 10 years of pensionable service; and iii) that he or she has attained the age of 60 years.
17. In the instant case, the appellants have fulfilled first two conditions enumerated above, but they had not attained 60 years when they were relieved from service on 31.03.2001 under the Scheme. Therefore, it is their contention that amendment effected to Rule 22 on 31.03.2001 which was on the very same date they ceased to be in service of the bank cannot be applied as the applicants namely the appellants
- : 23 :-
were not aware of the amendment incorporated to Rule 22. Further on the date they applied for voluntary retirement under the Scheme, no such amendment was found on the rule book, that such an amendment to Rule 22 could not have been effected after their application under the voluntary retirement scheme had been accepted and they were relieved from service on 31.03.2001. Therefore, it is their contention that the aforesaid portion of the amendment to Rule 22 may be declared as not applicable to the appellants and that it would be applicable only prospectively. In this context, they have placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court referred to above.
18. We have examined the aforesaid contentions in light of the relevant clauses of the Scheme as well as the amendment made to Rule 22. On a conspectus reading of the Scheme, it is clear that whatever pension rule prevailed as on the date they ceased to be in service of the Bank which is the relevant date i.e. 31.03.2001, would be applicable to the appellants. The expression 'Relevant Date' means the date on which they cease to be in service of the bank. Therefore, the
- : 24 :-
Scheme has guardedly used the expression 'Relevant Date' to mean the date on which the employees ceased to be in the service of the Bank and not the date of acceptance of the scheme by the Bank. Therefore, the extant rule regarding payment of pension as on 31.03.2001 had to be made applicable to the employees of the Bank such as the appellants because on that day, which is the relevant date under the Scheme, they ceased to be in the service of the Bank which is the basis for payment of pension. Thus applicability of Rule 22 under the Scheme of voluntary retirement would be as it stood on the relevant date which is 31.03.2001 in the instant case.
19. Further, the retirement of the appellants under the Scheme was under a special contract, it was not under a rule dealing with retirement on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years which is in the usual course.
Further, no employee of the Bank was coerced to apply for retirement under the scheme. As the name suggests it was a voluntary Scheme subject to certain stipulations, terms and conditions. Once the application of the employee of the Bank
- : 25 :-
under the scheme was accepted, all terms and conditions under the Scheme was applicable which also included payment of pension under the Rules (Rule 22) as it stood on the relevant date i.e. 31.03.2001. Therefore, we find that the learned Single Judges in both the writ petitions have rightly interpreted that having regard to amendment made to Rule 22(1)(a) as on 31.03.2001 the appellants were not entitled to pension under the said Rule as the appellants had accepted the rule as it would exist on the relevant date i.e., 31.03.2001.
20. As far as the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court is concerned, it has been stayed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even otherwise on a reading of the same, we are not persuaded to follow the same as the said judgment proceeds on the aspect of fraud under Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1882. The Calcutta High Court has invoked doctrine of fraud in the making of the amendment to Rule 22(1)(a) of the Rules on the premise that on the date of acceptance of the voluntary retirement application filed by the employees it was known to the Bank that it had decided to
- : 26 :-
amend its pension rules as a result of which the employees would be deprived of their right to pension. It is reasoned that the employees had no means of knowledge of such amendment to Rule 22(1)(a) of the Rules at the time of agreement and that it was the duty of the Bank to inform the employees about the future amendment to the pension rules. If the same had been informed, the employees would not have opted for voluntary retirement and the silence of the Bank has amounted to fraud on its part. With respect, we do not agree with the said reasoning as there could be no invocation of doctrine of fraud, when an amendment is made to Rules. The legislature or its delegate is entitled to amend the statute or the delegated legislation, as the case may be, as and when the situation warrants. Before an amendment is made to a statute or to a delegated legislation such as the Rules under consideration, the doctrine of notice of prior hearing is not applicable. Before passing of a statute or making of a delegated legislation nor while making any amendment to the same, would hearing of the persons or parties to whom the said legislation would be applicable is
- : 27 :-
contemplated in law. This is unlike a situation where an administration or a quasi-judicial order is passed. In the circumstances, it was unnecessary on the part of the Bank to have disclosed to the employees that there would be an amendment to Rule 22(1)(a) of the Rules to be enforced with effect from 31.03.2001. Therefore, an amendment made to Rule 22(1)(a) of the Rules cannot be fraudulent exercise of power.
21. No doubt voluntary retirement scheme is a contract between the employee and the employer. That when an application filed by the employee is accepted by the employer and the same is communicated to the employee, would result in the completion of the contract. There is no dispute about the same in the instant case, but what is important is the fact that the appellants - employees of the Bank had accepted the pension rules prevalent on the relevant date which is the date they ceased to be from service of the Bank i.e., 31.03.2001 being applied to them. Since the appellants herein had not completed 60 years as on 31.03.2001, they did not fulfill the third condition mentioned
- : 28 :-
in Rule 22(1)(a) which was incorporated and made effective on 31.03.2001 and therefore, were disentitled to any pension under the said Rules. But erroneously, the appellants were extended pensionary benefits under Rule 22(1)(a) without bearing in mind the amendment made to the same on 31.03.2001. In the circumstances, the Bank sought for recovery of the same. However, the learned single Judges have observed that the Bank was not entitled to recover the pension paid and the commuted value of the pension already paid to the appellants herein. Only future payment of pension has been discontinued in accordance with amended Rule 22(1)(a). We are in agreement with the orders of the learned Single Judges. There is no merit in these appeals. The same are dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE S*/nm